Talk:Unionskirche, Idstein/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

preliminary review
  • There's a dead link (marked).
  • Is this article about the church? From the image, it doesn't look like a Baroque church, and there's almost no description in the article about the church's architectural elements. I think the article goes a little off topic by describing more about the church's paintings etc., but nothing about the church's architect, who built it, etc. The "History" is more about detailing the paintings, but little about the church and it's history. Is this article part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, as the talk page indicates?
  • Perhaps the article should be retitled? Maybe (I'm not good about coming up with article titles) "Paintings in the Unionskirche, Idstein"?
  • Don't know. What do you think?
It's supposed to cover the church, its history (friars, witch hunt, church union), its (most notable) interior decoration, its music (organ 100 years, choir 40 years in 2012), - don't know how to "classify". Who says Baroque church? Gothic, even earlier beginnings, we don't know the architects, and almost don't see there work, because Baroque changed it. Will look closer tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

reply
p.s. I think the German version says Baroque.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the dead link. - I wonder if it should go under "Miscellaneous" rather than "Architecture", it really isn't "the" typical church article. The presentation of the paintings (on canvas, not on the walls) is unique at least in Germany, as far as I know, I will try to get that sourced. We don't see any of the earlier interior. I will try to expand organ and choir, for the anniversaries, being concerned more with people rather than the building ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
reply
  • I notice that you asked an expert for his advice on your talk page who seems to agree with most of my conclusions:[2][3] His answer has some good suggestions, which I agree with. Your answer there indicates that you are doing some thinking about the content of the article.[4] Meanwhile, I'll place it on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I added and restructured. Please help me to include the following evaluation, from the official "monument" source: "Die Unionskirche zeigt die Neueinrichtung eines evangelischen Kirchenraumes nach Gestaltungsprinzipien, wie sie in der Hofkirche zu Torgau 1544 entwickelt wurden. Die Ausstattung mit Gemälden wird zum Bestandteil der Architektur, gleichzeitig ist sie ein seltenes, spätes Beispiel evangelischer Laiendogmatik in gemalter Form. Erste und bedeutende eigenständige kirchliche Bauschöpfung in Nassau nach dem 30jährigen Krieg.", roughly translating to: The Unionskirche shows the creation of a Protestant "church room" (describes it well but is probably not the right term) following principles from the 1544 Hofkirche zu Torgau (unfortunately a red link even in German, Luther praised it). The use of pictures becomes part of the architecture, at the same time it is a rare and late example of protestant "Laiendogmatik" (dogmatic by laymen?) in painted form. First and notable "eigenständige" (? without an example?) creation of a church building in Nassau after the 30 years war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
reply
  • I think you need to decide on what you want this article to focus on. I don't think you can cover the paintings in detail, include extensive coverage of music from 1972 through the 2000s etc. (concerts and who performed them, etc), along with religious history Persecution of witches, along with the actual church - it's architectural history. If you cover what's in the lede, then you have way too many images of paintings. Yes, the paintings become part of the church's architecture, but not at the expense of actual Architectural style. See Glossary of architecture. Consider narrowing the focus of the article and changing the title. Or less take a crash course in architecture - its not that hard as many wikipedia articles have excellent architectural coverage. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • p.s. The google translation of the German above is: "The Union Church presents the refurbishment of evangelical church interior design principles, as developed in the court chapel at Torgau 1544. The availability of paintings becomes a part of the architecture; it is a rare example of late Protestant lay dogma in painted form. The first and major independent Bauschöpfung Church in Nassau after the 30 year war. (My German is poor.) MathewTownsend (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
it helps, some is fine, "lay dogma", but some is wrong, hard to sift, "evangelical" is NOT "evangelisch", Protestant is (tell Wikipedia also, I tried and gave up). - "Availability" is not "Ausstattung", but perhaps "refurbishing" is? Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • p.s. I'm not under standing your use of this citation:Martin-Luther-Straße 1 Seems to have lots of architectural details, but you use it to cite Rubens The Wedding at Cana and a quote "Johannes auf Patmos sieht den Himmel offen und die Engel mit dem Evangelium" which I don't find there.
my mistake, thanks for pointing it out, Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • "on the south wall largely based on Rubens's painting The Feast of Herod which hangs today in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh.[3]" example of off-topic detail.
do you mean where it hangs? - that the design is based on a Rubens design seems not off-topic Gerda Arendt (talk)
  • I urge you to consult other wikipedia church experts to decide what the focus of this article should be. Right now, it's all over the place. I'm giving some example of good articles on churches so you can see the format and content of "church" articles is relatively focused. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I will look tomorrow, Gerda Arendt (talk)
yes, thanks for supplying these examples, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
reply

yes, I noticed that you got more advice on your talk page[5]. You don't seem to be following this advice (which is exactly the same as mine). I feel that there is too much work to do on this article, more than can be done in just a few days. Also, you don't see clear what the article is about. It seems to me, both from what User:Peter I. Vardy said and what I said, that if you title the article by the name of the church, it's about the building. His formula for a "church" article is the same as mine (see the examples he gave, as well as the ones I gave you.) Also, my German is stressed out. But the German article seems to me to be more on the right track than this one. If you really want to write about the painting and the concerts etc. you should write an article about them with an appropriate title, such as "Paintings of the Unionskirche, Idstein". Again, entitling it with the name of the church implies that the article is about the building. I will give some examples of the problems below. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    Prose is muddled and needs copy editing (examples only)
    in the short lede "monument is mentioned in two different places
    under "Protestant church": "Whereas the basilica nave was kept more or less as it was, it was expanded to the west, the walls were heightened resulting in flatter roofs."
    under "Fittings and furniture": "Franz Matthias Hiernle erected an epitaph for Georg August Samuel von Nassau-Idstein (1665–1721), his wife Henriette Dorothea and their children, after a design by Maximilian von Welsch, which was placed left of the altar.
    under "Fittings and furniture": "The "Chorgitter", separating the elevated altar area, was made by Johann Urban Zais."
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The nominator asked for and received from me and another editor many examples of GA church articles to demonstrate how to organize a "church" article, but has disregarded the advice.
    Example only:
    Most of the lede is not contained in the article and visa versa
    The article is disorganized: Under "History" there are six sections including "Protestant church" which seems to include a discussion of architecture
    There is no "Architecture" section
    The history section doesn't seem to be ordered chronologically
    "Paintings" section shouldn't be under history - usually a "Features" section or something similar, or under the "Fittings and furniture"
    "Fitting and furniture" section contains: "Johann, infamous for his Persecution of witches (Hexenverfolgung) as late as 1676,[5] died shortly before the reconstruction of the church was completed."
    The article has two main sections: History, Music. Church articles typically have: History, Architecture, Features, Present day. Most prominent and given the most weight should be History and Architecture
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    examples of unsourced material given below
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: (direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guideline
    Unsourced statements: (examples only)
    "The Unionskirche is a monument marked according to the Hague Convention."
    The whole "Present day" section is unsourced.
    "The organ, built in 1783 by Stumm, was replaced in 1912 by an instrument of Walcker, but retaining the historic case (Prospekt)." uncited
    Almost all is sourced to German translations, mostly [6], Someone very familiar with German needs to check these.
    c. no original research:
    This use of paintings as an architectural feature is unusual for a Protestant church. - this may be or as there is no source and seems based on the editors assumptions
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Doesn't sufficiently cover history or architecture
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Many examples of irrelevant detail
    Too much detailed coverage of "Music" considering the topic is the church. This section alone is about the size of the whole rest of the article.
    "for example The Wedding at Cana[2] on the south wall largely based on Rubens's painting The Feast of Herod which hangs today in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinburgh."
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
    too much emphasis on material not directly related to the church.
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Fail

Please decide whether this article is about the church, or about the paintings, or mostly focused on present day music, or what. Requires too much work to be completed in the time given for hold. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. As I was out most of today I had no time yet to look at the examples you gave me, but I looked at the ones Peter I. Vardy supplied. - The common bias that Protestantism is against paintings in churches, - I might find a source for it, but don't find it necessary. - The present day section is taken from the church's website, how would I formally source that? - For me, a church is the building AND its history AND the life in it. - I am happy that the article was improved in the process, thanks again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As Peter said to you on your talk page, it's not what you think. The article is for the general reader and also should follow wikipedia conventions for "churches". I think Peter laid out quite clearly what was needed. And everything should be well sourced. The church's website is considered a reliable source for it's own schedule etc., the type of stuff Peter thought you should include. (I'm unaware of any "common biases" one way or another, but remember to find reliable sources for any such statements. The article is not the place to assume there are "common biases".) Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
s. Beeldenstorm ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)